The Return of Big Government Conservatives & Newt’s ‘Traditional Capitalism’

Erick Erickson sizes up Rick Santorum (and be sure and check out the whole post because the Red State team has compiled a thorough collection of some of the former Senator’s more troubling votes):

I’m rather tired of all the people who don’t like Romney trying to claim Rick Santorum is not a big government conservative, or not a pro-life statist. I would support him before I would support Romney too, but I have no intention of giving up ideological and intellectual consistency in the name of beating Mitt Romney.

Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.

Suddenly we’re all forgetting what a big government conservatism is. The term was coined by Fred Barnes in defense of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservative” agenda. Bush intended to use domestic social welfare policy for conservative ends. In the process, he expanded the welfare state to do so through No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, etc. Rick Santorum was a willing participant in this.

Santorum is a conservative. He is. But his conservatism is largely defined by his social positions and the ends to which government would be deployed. But he has chosen as the means to those conservative ends bigger government. We see big government conservatives most clearly when they deviate from the tireless efforts of people like Mike Pence and Jim DeMint and the others who were willing to oppose George W. Bush’s expansion of the welfare state. Rick Santorum was not among them.

On the subject of conservatives who are comfortable with big government… Can someone explain to me which Tea Partiers Newt Gingrich thinks he’s going to win over (win back?) for attacking Mitt Romney’s capitalism again? Tim Mak at Politico reports:

Newt Gingrich took Mitt Romney to task Monday for his role with Bain Capital, arguing that the former Massachusetts governor “looted the companies [and] left people unemployed” when the venture firm took control.

“They apparently looted the companies, left people unemployed, and walked off with millions of dollars,” Gingrich said on NBC’s “Today Show.” “Look, I’m for capitalism, I’m for people who go in to save a company… if somebody comes in takes all the money out of your company, and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.”

Would anyone care to provide suggestions of Newt’s definition of “traditional capitalism”?

RuPaul explained to POLITICO: “I’m going to N.H. on a mission to spread love and set the record straight: contrary to recent reports, I am NOT Ron Paul. And I am not running for president of the United States. I hope to meet Ron Paul in person so we can be seen together to put the rumors to rest once and for all. And to remind Mr. Paul and all the Republican presidential candidates ‘if you can’t love yourself, how in the hell are you going to love somebody else. Can I get an ‘Amen?’”

RuPaul described himself in a press release as “not a political person by nature,” but added, “any time a man leaves the house in a wig and a pair of cha cha heels, he’s making a political statement. Let us not forget that this great nation was founded by a bunch of men wearing wigs.”

And let us also not forget that RuPaul isn’t just doing this for nothing: “Oh, and in case you’re wondering, RuPaul does have a show to promote. Season 4 of “RuPaul’s Drag Race” premieres on Jan. 30 on Logo.”

At least someone is putting this GOP primary to good use. Free advertising at Politico. And now here at PJM too. Well done.

David Swindle was the associate editor of PJ Media from 2011 through April of 2015. He has written and edited articles and blog posts on politics, news, culture, religion, and entertainment. He edited the PJ Lifestyle section and the PJ columnists. Contact him at davidswindle @ gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @DaveSwindle.
He has worked full-time as a writer, editor, blogger, and New Media troublemaker since 2009, and at PJ Media from 2011 through April of 2015. He graduated with a degree in English (creative writing emphasis) and political science from Ball State University in 2006. Previously he's also worked as a freelance writer for The Indianapolis Star and the film critic for WTHR.com. He lives in Los Angeles with his wife and their Siberian Husky puppy Maura.

Click here to view the 4 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

4 Comments, 4 Threads

1.
Bob

I am reading Walter Isaacson’s great biography of Steve Jobs. In 1985, Steve Jobs left Apple Computer. When he returned to Apple in 1997, he was an advisor paid $1 per year with no stock and no stock options. In his first year, he fired 3,000 employees. He went on to build Apple into the most valuable company in the world.

I compare Jobs laying off people at Apple with Mitt Romney laying off employees for companies he managed at Bain Capital. Some of the Bain-managed companies were saved, while others weren’t, but the layoffs weren’t motivated by hatred of people or greed, any more than Jobs’ similar actions at Apple were. Often, cutting payroll expenses is the key to trying to turn a company around but not every failing company can be rehabilitated.

Free market conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum should understand these facts. They either don’t understand the facts or choose to ignore them to advance their own political ambitions. I’m in the ABO camp but Romney is in the best position to beat the Bamster and make a real difference in how Washington works.

Bain Capital is the poster child of Capitalism in my opinion. Buy the stock of a struggling company, restructure that company, then sell the shares of a solid company on the market at a profit. Part of the restructuring involves trimming the payroll and divesting non performing assets to make the remaining company strong and viable. The alternative is to liquidate the assets and walk away.

I have some problems with Mitt as a candidate, but Bain Capital is not one of them.

1. Winning the first republican majority in 40 years, which enabled…
2. Cutting the capital gains tax, which enabled
3. Balancing the federal budget and
4. Reforming welfare

That government revolution started a fever of entrepreneurship that drove a stock market frenzy….and not coincidentally, spawned the internet revolution, Google, Amazon.com, utube, yahoo, etc., all of which changed life in ways more profound than will be understood for decades. This website is an example.

Of course, people will argue that Newt had nothing to do with it. He just happened to be around when the conditions that gestated the revolution were created. That will be argued by the same people who claim that him taking a few bucks from Fannie Mae is evidence that he is a menace worse than the Black Death.

Newt’s success also caused his enemies who favor the status quo to drive him out of office. Interestingly, those enemies now include many of the hypocrit billionaires his actions enabled. Marc Cuban is a clownish example of that.

After that, the stock market collapsed, Bush won, and everything was back to the status quo of expanding government at the expense of the private sector. Since then, we are where we are.